Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year

RoyFairbank wrote: A mans income should be a function of his needs. 15 million is more than any man's needs are worth.

Epignosis wrote: smartpatrol wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: A mans income should be a function of his needs. 15 million is more than any man's needs are worth.   You two can have fun in your world in which there are nearly no highly-qualified, highly-regulated doctors, educators, architects, attorneys, plumbers, pharmacists, electricians, restauranteurs, police... Pay me according to my needs instead of my expertise and effort, and I'll gladly flip burgers for an hour a day.

That argument isn't as convincing as it first appears for there are people who work because they enjoy it, especially the highly-qualified and the highly-regulated, I would go as far as to say I wouldn't feel happy about employing a doctor, educator (why aren't retired teachers called taughters?), architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman who was only doing it for the commensurate salary. Not withstanding I would develop a sizable "need" to endure flipping burgers for an hour a day.

Epignosis wrote: There are such people, but that is why I said "nearly no" as opposed to "no."  How many would do what their jobs require and do them for a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening?  I love teaching, and I take home (for a family of four, soon to be five) about exactly what we need each month to maintain our standard of living (and we have no house in the country; we have no motorcar).  In other words, if I could make what I make as a teacher 8 hours a day or as a flipper of burgers 1 hour a day, I'd very quickly choose the burgers (I enjoying being in a kitchen too).

If everyone had a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening then we wouldn't know any different - the reward for being a doctor, teachers, architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman would no longer be monetary - it would be someother form of status or recognition of accomplishment, but there would still be highly-qualified "professional" people.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: There are such people, but that is why I said "nearly no" as opposed to "no."  How many would do what their jobs require and do them for a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening?  I love teaching, and I take home (for a family of four, soon to be five) about exactly what we need each month to maintain our standard of living (and we have no house in the country; we have no motorcar).  In other words, if I could make what I make as a teacher 8 hours a day or as a flipper of burgers 1 hour a day, I'd very quickly choose the burgers (I enjoying being in a kitchen too). If everyone had a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening then we wouldn't know any different - the reward for being a doctor, teachers, architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman would no longer be monetary - it would be someother form of status or recognition of accomplishment, but there would still be highly-qualified "professional" people.   Maybe you would take the burger job I wouldn't, even though I also enjoy being in a kitchen - I (and I suspect you) would soon want the restaurateur job because it is more interesting, more challenging and more satisfying (regardless of how much it paid).

But we've eaten the fruit, met Prometheus, taken the red pill, wandered out of Plato's cave and followed the white rabbit, and now nearly no one would go through 8+ years of expensive school, have to maintain malpractice insurance, have to hire a staff to handle insurance claims and scheduling, and deal with illness every day for (literally?) peanuts and a pat on the back.  There may be a few highly-qualified people left, but I doubt many of those would be willing to be highly-regulated.

As for running a restaurant, I've thought about it, but decided against it because I enjoy my evenings at home.

Epignosis wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: @epignosis There would be a limit to how many burger flipping jobs would be available if it was that popular. There would still be a required Division of Labor in the economy. At some point the "easy jobs" would no longer be available, or there would be a bottleneck, assuming everyone was like you and desired to do them (which we should not assume). They would be forced to go down different career paths. It would be a matter of individual taste what career path one would go down, but you would be compelled by the division of labor to end up at different careers. The division of labor predates capitalism by millenia, as does many professions, such as doctor and teacher. Lots of things predate things.  Doesn't mean they don't suck.  Capitalism thrived because we no longer needed the collectivist mentality on a tribal/national scale (though many of us act like we do).  Let a bureaucracy choose careers for us: I might like to be a surgeon, but my hands shake.  You want me taking that tumor out of you?  Suppose that I am awful at every task I am given.  No medical reason- I am just that incompetent.  Can I still have what I need?

Why do assume people would be appointed? You study a career and are awarded a degree / certification based on performance. If you fail, you can go to another job. It is the same in all societies.

Even the most heavily bureaucratized countries in the 20th century like the Soviet Union produced many talented scientists and doctors. Their system of merit-based education and career training was no different from anywhere else, i.e. it was based on aptitude. Assuming even the most egregious bureaucracy either would want to or even could (imagine the scope of such a bureaucracy!) take over from the basic mechanisms of education, exams, training and certification and replace them with arbitrary appointments, is very odd and unrealistic.

The division of labor and career proliferation by aptitude would be unchanged by remuneration at the level of comprehensive need.
 


Edited by RoyFairbank - May 02 2012 at 13:01

Snow Dog wrote: I have no idea who he is.

Whoever he is he sounds like some kind of jerk that ought to have a brain transplant..

        Where's this man when you need him?

Capping "income" makes no real sense.  There are different kinds of income- some mean working a job and spending money, thereby maintaining jobs, and some mean investing in others' dreams and investments, thereby creating jobs.  I like how money votes. 

But you mean I can start a business that takes $10 million in loans and investments but can only ever get back $1 million a year in income?  To hell with that (and anyone my business could potentially employ).

There will always be poor people- no governmental model can ever change that permanently.


Edited by Epignosis - May 02 2012 at 19:10

I never can tell with you Rob but I hope, especially given my recent thoughts, you realize my sarcasm...


Of course it makes no sense. That was the point, none of this makes sense.
This "income should reflect needs" business, and the Ryan Seacrest making $15 million thing
It all is lunacy

One of the many reasons it's lunacy is because what people need to accept is: like it or not you won't get the super wealthy to pay their "fair share" whatever you deem it to be. Seriously people, since the days of Monarchs it's never happened.
It's partly what facilitated my shift in beliefs.

I also question what is "wealthy"
People tend to throw this around in regards to the Romneys and Buffets of the world...the CEOs and Wall Street Bankers (the latter IMO are the worst because they shuffle money around making tons for them and investors but don't really contribute to society)
Anywho, that's a small % of the population. This $250K thing is kind of bullsh*t to me. Hell even 100K up...

Those people earned every cent through hard work and I do think it's wrong to burden that group with more taxes.
So people need to define wealthy. If you mean millionaires well OK but "upper middle" no...

Yes, that's what I said earlier more or less
The lunacy I meant is about all the opposition to it, and this "needs" business.


Hate to break it to people, (of which I used to be one) but wasn't a needs based society tried and it failed massively?
I mean sure, it wasn't "by the book" but that would've been even worse.
It's just not human nature anyway. We want things, and more.



Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 19:25